Jdf88dhf Videos

Since President Obama's inauguration, numerous conservative media figures have called for a "revolution" or have invoked violent rhetoric while discussing the Obama administration or government in general. In addition to encouraging violence, such violent rhetoric has also included suggesting Obama's policies were doing violence to the American people and depicting Obama as a rapist, spousal abuser, or mobster. Media Matters for America has previously noted that since Obama's inauguration, conservative media figures have made ominous, even apocalyptic claims about the impact policies pursued by Obama and other progressives might have on the United States; warned of impending socialism, fascism, communism, Nazism, McCarthyism, or Marxism under the Obama administration; asserted or suggested that under Obama, U.S. sovereignty may give way to a one-world government; and warned their audiences that Obama's administration will seize their guns. Media Matters has compiled the following examples of revolutionary or violent rhetoric: During the April 9 edition of his Fox News program, Glenn Beck claimed to be imitating Obama while pouring liquid from a gasoline can -- which he later stated was water -- on an "average American." Beck said during his demonstration: "President Obama, why don't you just set us on fire? ... We didn't vote to lose the republic." In an April 9 NewsBusters.org post, associate editor Noel Sheppard repeatedly used the acronym WACO -- which he wrote stood for the "War Against Conservative Opinion" -- in discussing how "liberal bloggers blamed right-leaning media members -- in particular, Fox News's Glenn Beck -- for the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania." On the April 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity, nationally syndicated radio host Mark Levin said of "the Obama plan" for the economy: "I view it as economic child abuse. I've been calling it that for the longest time because our children are being compelled to work for generations that will be dead for money that's already spent. Their opportunities will be limited. Their liberty will be limited. And we're enslaving them to a future that our ancestors didn't create for us." In a March 31 post on RedState.com, while discussing a Washington county's ban on certain kinds of dishwasher detergent, managing editor Erick Erickson wrote of politicians: "At what point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?" Erickson later added: "Were I in Washington State, I'd be cleaning my gun right about now waiting to protect my property from the coming riots or the government apparatchiks coming to enforce nonsensical legislation." During the March 31 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, while discussing Obama's foreign and economic policies, Fox News contributor Dick Morris said: "Those crazies in Montana who say, 'We're going to kill ATF agents because the U.N.'s going to take over' -- well, they're beginning to have a case." During the March 30 edition his Fox News program, Beck aired a graphic portraying Obama and Democrats as vampires and said, "The government is full of vampires, and they are trying to suck the lifeblood out of the economy." Beck then suggested "driv[ing] a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers." On the March 26 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-hosts Brian Kilmeade and Gretchen Carlson hosted Michael Franzese, the former caporegime of La Cosa Nostra's Colombo crime family, to discuss similarities in the way Democratic leaders and progressive figures are "operating" and "the way we used to operate on the street." Kilmeade began the segment by asking, "So, is this a big stretch to think that, all of a sudden, the Washington, D.C., has become our Godfather?" Asked by Carlson what he would "call" Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Franzese replied that Geithner is "like an underboss to me. I mean, he's doing the work of, you know, the whole family, and he's kind of the guy out front, and looking to exercise control." When Kilmeade later asked how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) would fit "in the mob," Franzese replied that Pelosi and Frank are like "the lady and the guy that Obama is kind of stuck with to appease the rest of the family," and he also referred to Obama as "the boss." During the March 25 edition of Sean Hannity's radio program, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) told Hannity she is calling for "an orderly revolution" so that Democrats can't "achieve their ends any longer." In response to Bachmann's statement, Hannity said: "Well, I'm inspired by what you're saying, Congresswoman, and I only hope that your fellow Republicans get as energetic and as outspoken as you are here." From Hannity's radio program: BACHMANN: At this point, the American people -- it's like Thomas Jefferson said, a revolution every now and then is a good thing. We are at the point, Sean, of revolution. And by that, what I mean -- an orderly revolution, where the people of this country wake up and get up and make a decision that this is not going to happen on their watch. It won't be our children and grandchildren that are in debt. It is we who are in debt. We will be bankrupt in this country inside of 10 years if we don't get a grip. And we can't let the Democrats achieve their ends any longer. HANNITY: Well, I'm inspired by what you're saying, Congresswoman, and I only hope that your fellow Republicans get as energetic and as outspoken as you are here. Bachmann later stated: "[W]e can never forget that the Founders were rebelling against a governmental authority that abused their taxation power. And that was the tyranny. That's exactly what's happening right now. And we have to -- we have to rise up and say, 'No more. Not on my watch. No more.' " At the conclusion of the interview, Hannity encouraged Bachmann to "keep going, and I promise you, as they attack you, you're going to have conservatives like myself in your corner, I promise you." Hannity then added: "Boy, that was inspiring." In a March 12 column for the conservative news site WorldNetDaily.com, Erik Rush wrote that Obama is a "closet communist" and "pathological liar." Rush then compared Obama to a rapist, writing: "A few weeks ago, a television commentator in the alternative press suggested that Obama seemed to be attempting to 'ram it through,' in reference to the urgency with which he promoted the stimulus bill. Indeed -- like the proverbial cellblock rapist, our president is 'ramming' as much of his Marxist agenda down our collective throats as quickly as he can. One would think he fears that someone might come around the corner at any second and catch him." Rush's column was noted on Media Matters editor Terry Krepel's ConWebWatch blog. In a March 9 post on FoxNews.com's Fox Forum, Sheppard defended Rush Limbaugh's repeated statements that he hopes Barack Obama fails by invoking secessionists during the Civil War, writing: Is it really wrong or even unpatriotic to want the president and/or his policies to fail? Hasn't this likely been the case in this country since its very birth? It is an indisputable, historical fact that many Colonists did not support independence from England, and were hoping with all their heart and all their soul that President George Washington would fail. Less than a century later, likely half the nation hoped President Abraham Lincoln didn't succeed in defeating the Confederacy. The argument today is that wishing ill upon President Obama is unpatriotic because of the fragile condition of our economy -- but it is a metaphysical certitude that Washington and Lincoln presided over a much weaker nation than what we are facing in 2009. In his March 9 column for WorldNetDaily, actor and political activist Chuck Norris wrote: "How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution? We the people have the authority according to America's Declaration of Independence." Norris also wrote, "On Glenn Beck's radio show last week, I quipped in response to our wayward federal government, 'I may run for president of Texas.' That need may be a reality sooner than we think." Interviewing Norris on the March 3 edition of his radio program, according to a transcript posted on his website, Beck stated: "Somebody asked me this morning, they said, you really believe that there's going to be trouble in the future. And I said, if this country starts to spiral out of control and, you know, and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control. ... Americans will, they just, they won't stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up. And they said, where's that going to come from? And I said Texas, it's going to come from Texas." Beck then asked Norris, "Do you agree with that, Chuck, or not?" to which Norris replied, "Oh, yeah. You know, Texas is a republic, you know. ... [W]e could break off from the union if we wanted to." Beck responded, "You do, you call me," adding: "Seriously, you do. I don't mind having that lone star on my flag. I really don't mind it. I've been out with a seam ripper looking at my flag going, I don't know, California could go." In his March 4 WorldNetDaily column, Burt Prelutsky compared Obama to a spousal abuser, writing: "Frankly, I don't know why anybody continues to hold Obama in high esteem. Maybe it's like those women who marry charming fellows only to discover after the vows have been exchanged that he's an abuser. In spite of the black eyes and split lips, the ladies are just too embarrassed to call the cops and have their friends and relatives discover what a dunderhead they've been." In his February 25 WorldNetDaily column, Ellis Washington compared Obama to a mobster, writing: How does the legend of Faust apply to [Republican Louisiana] Gov. [Bobby] Jindal's refusal to accept all of the $100 million dollars Obama is offering the state of Louisiana as part of it's share of stimulus package money. President Obama, like the suave, cosmopolitan Mephistopheles, has not only crafted and passed the largest wealth confiscation in the history of the world, but upon closer examination of the 1,000-plus pages of this bloated, complex and convoluted text, the devil is truly in the details. [...] It's like the wedding scene of "The Godfather," Part I, where Michael Corleone recalled his father (Vito Corleone) doing business through his muscleman, Lou Cabrachi: "Either your signature on this contract, or your brains on this contract." President Barack Corleone's so-called $787 billion economic stimulus package has offered America a deal with the devil. During the February 20 edition of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose, a caller discussed a proposed "insurance bill for gun owners": CALLER: I don't feel -- it doesn't matter if they pass an insurance bill for gun owners or not. They're not getting the guns, flat-out. I mean, that's just how it is. And they'll find out what a sizable force is once they encounter a group of citizens that own guns. I think that's one reason they're attacking the First Amendment is to stop you guys from warning the rest of the public. Co-host Jim Quinn replied: "Oh, sure, sure. I mean, it's the crux of all the amendments. As a matter of fact, the Founding Fathers argued that the Second Amendment should have been the first. Because without the second, there is no first. Thanks, Travis. Yeah, when you hear that Quinn's guns have been confiscated, you will know that Quinn is dead." The slogan for RightWingNews.com -- a conservative blog run by Townhall.com columnist John Hawkins -- is: "Kneecapping Barack Obama at every opportunity."

This week, conservative media figures bombarded the media landscape with accusations that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's proposal to allow the government to take over nonbank financial institutions amounted to a massive White House "power grab." A chilling accusation to be sure, especially when one considers the unprecedented abuses of power that occurred on President Bush's watch. In the words of Fox News' Sean Hannity, Geithner's plan is "the single biggest power grab and move toward socialism in the history of the country." Others in the media uncritically cited such conservative claims, including House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-OH) charge that Geithner's proposal constitutes "an unprecedented grab of power," despite the fact that the budget blueprint released by House Republicans, including Boehner, contained a call for "a process to address insolvent institutions that stops throwing good money after bad into failing institutions and places insolvent ones into temporary receivership." The GOP's proposal raises the question of whether the media, which reported ad nauseam on the charge that Geithner and the White House are engaging in a "power grab" by asking Congress for this authority, will now note that the same House Republican caucus that made the charge has now proposed giving the federal government similar authority. Hypocrisy, anyone? Of course, the central question remains: How can it possibly be a power "grab" if the Obama administration is seeking this authority from Congress -- a coequal branch of government? Where's W? The disappearing of a president Like last week, much of the coverage this week of the AIG executive bonuses was devoid of any mention of the Bush administration's role in the controversy. A USA Today/Gallup poll question about who was to blame for the AIG bonuses conveniently left out the Bush administration as a possible response, despite the administration's decision to give AIG billions in aid without requiring that the company withhold the bonuses. Similarly, a Wall Street Journal article about Geithner and his aides' involvement in decisions about AIG's bonus payments did not note that it was the Bush administration that negotiated a November 2008 stock purchase agreement with AIG through which the Bush Treasury Department injected $40 billion into the company without requiring that the bonus contracts be nullified. Worse yet, the conservative Washington Times took things a step further, reporting GOP criticism of Democrats over the AIG bonus issue and quoting a Republican strategist asserting: "This is not something [Democrats] can point to George Bush. ... They own the issue of giving bonuses to the AIG executives." Glaringly absent was any mention that the $53 million in AIG bonuses that the article mentioned were reportedly paid out under the Bush administration or that a Bush-appointed special inspector general for TARP has stated that the Bush Treasury Department knew about the AIG bonus contracts and did not insist on their cancellation as a condition of AIG's receiving bailout money. For the media, laughter is not the best medicine Media Matters for America this week released a compelling online video, titled "Infectious Laughter: The Epidemiology of a Smear," that demonstrates in detail how the conservative echo chamber operates, using President Obama's interview with Steve Kroft on CBS' 60 Minutes from last weekend as a case study. Echoing a March 22 Politico article, discussion of Obama's laughter was hyped by the Drudge Report. Additionally, the March 23 editions of several morning news shows featured segments on Obama's laughter during the interview. The segments, which aired on NBC's Today, MSNBC's Morning Joe, MSNBC Live, and Fox News' Fox we'll see what the action is." Reading from Limbaugh's teleprompter Almost daily over the past several weeks, conservative leader Rush Limbaugh has been fixated on Obama's use of a teleprompter. Despite the fact that such a device has commonly been used by media figures and past presidents of both political parties, Limbaugh presses on, day-after-day, taking every opportunity to lambaste what he refers to as "TOTUS," or the "teleprompter of the United States." Apparently reading directly from Limbaugh's own personal teleprompter, several conservative media figures -- including Matt Drudge and Sean Hannity -- uncritically highlighted a March 18 SkyNews.com report that a "teleprompt blunder has led to Barack Obama thanking himself in a speech at the White House in a St Patrick's Day celebration." But as Toby Harnden, U.S. editor for the U.K.'s Telegraph, noted, the pool report of Obama's March 17 event with Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen indicates that in saying, "First, I'd like to say thank you to President Obama," Obama was, in Harnden's words, making "a good-natured and well-received joke" at the expense of Cowen, who earlier in the event had mistakenly read from the teleprompter displaying Obama's speech. Indeed, as early as March 18, Fox News anchor Bret Baier reported that Obama had "jokingly" made the comments in question. The ghost of George Will's presence Last month, The Washington Post's George Will faced intense, widespread criticism for dubious global warming claims he made in two separate columns. It now appears The New York Times Magazine has been possessed by Will's science-denying spirit, as it is slated to run a profile of physicist and global warming skeptic Freeman Dyson this weekend. The profile quotes without challenge Dyson's false suggestion that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970s that the earth was cooling. Unlike the current consensus that global warming exists, there was no consensus in the 1970s that the earth was cooling. A September 2008 article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (a peer-reviewed publication) investigated the "pervasive myth" that "there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent." The article found: A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth's basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then. Additionally, The New York Times Magazine sent Nicholas Dawidoff, whom Brad Johnson refers to as a "baseball writer" and who has not previously written about science for the Times, to profile Dyson. Dawidoff has published four books -- The Fly Swatter, a biography of his grandfather Alexander Gerschenkron; In the Country of Country, a collection of biographies of country musicians; The Catcher Was A Spy: The Mysterious Life Of Moe Berg; and The Crowd Sounds Happy: A Story of Love, Madness and Baseball -- and began his career covering baseball for Sports Illustrated. Dawidoff not only allowed Dyson to advance the previously mentioned falsehood about global cooling, he also quoted Dyson accusing Al Gore of being global warming's "chief propagandist" and "an opportunist" and accusing scientist James Hansen, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, of "consistently exaggerat[ing] all the dangers" of global warming. Be sure to check out these lists of Dawidoff's previous articles for The New York Times Magazine and The New York Times. Clearing up Kudlow's intentions As Washington Post Co. blogger Greg Sargent noted this week, Media Matters has launched Financial Media Matters, a website dedicated to holding accountable those who report on the financial industry, as well as those who report on labor, the economy, and other fiscal matters. The new website will focus extensively on ensuring that outlets such as CNBC, Fox Business Network, and The Wall Street Journal are held accountable. Also, following CNBC host Larry Kudlow's expression of interest in running for U.S. Senate in Connecticut, Media Matters President Eric Burns wrote an open letter last week to CNBC President Mark Hoffman that stated, in part, that Kudlow "is either a journalist or a candidate; he cannot be both. ... As a private citizen, [he] has a right to explore a run for public office, but using his platform as a CNBC host to further his political ambitions jeopardizes the integrity of your network." This week, Kudlow announced that he will not run for Senate, as The New York Times and the Hartford Courant, among others, noted. This week's media columns Media Matters Senior Fellows Eric Boehlert, Jamison Foser, and Karl Frisch look at Jeff Zucker and the CNBC straw man, deficient budget coverage, and the right's toxic assets, respectively. Week in Review video Click on image below to watch: Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog, research, and information center in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook or sign-up to receive his regular weekly columns by email.

During the March 25 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity and Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich put forth several falsehoods in support of Gingrich's claim that Democratic economic policies are moving the country "towards a political dictatorship." During the segment, Gingrich also declared that the description in National Review contributing editor Jonah Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, of "what a liberal fascist's economics would be like" is "frighteningly prescient" and could serve as "sort of an introductory guide to how the left is thinking this year." Hannity and Gingrich spewed the following falsehoods concerning Democratic economic proposals and policies: Discussing what he claimed was evidence of "the biggest power grab," Hannity falsely asserted, "They have asked for, in just the last week, the Obama administration, the right to limit executive pay even for companies that are not getting a bailout." In fact, in his March 24 written testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner made clear that in referring to restrictions on employee compensation, he was talking only about "financial institutions that are receiving government assistance." Indeed, during the March 24 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs explicitly rejected the claim that the administration sought to "put a cap" on executive salaries at firms not receiving bailout funds, stating: "[T]here are not plans to do something broad like that." Gingrich went on to claim, "We are seeing the biggest power grab by politicians in American history. The idea that they would propose that the Treasury could intervene and take over non-bank, non-financial system assets gives them the potential to basically create the equivalent of a dictatorship." In fact, in his March 24 written testimony, Geithner addressed authorizing the government to manage troubled non-bank financial institutions, but not "non-financial system assets." Geithner stated, "The U.S. government does not have the legal means today to manage the orderly restructuring of a large, complex, non-bank financial institution that poses a threat to the stability of our financial system." He further stated: As we have seen with AIG, distress at large, interconnected, non-depository financial institutions can pose systemic risks just as distress at banks can. The Administration proposes legislation to give the U.S. government the same basic set of tools for addressing financial distress at non-banks as it has in the bank context. The proposed resolution authority would allow the government to provide financial assistance to make loans to an institution, purchase its obligations or assets, assume or guarantee its liabilities, and purchase an equity interest. The U.S. government as a conservator or receiver would have additional powers to sell or transfer the assets or liabilities of the institution in question, renegotiate or repudiate the institution's contracts (including with its employees), and prevent certain financial contracts with the institution from being terminated on account of the conservatorship or receivership. This proposed legislation would fill a significant void in the current financial services regulatory structure with respect to non-bank financial institutions. Implementation would be modeled on the resolution authority that the FDIC has under current law with respect to banks. Gingrich subsequently asserted that "Congress had passed the authorization in the stimulus bill for AIG to pay those bonuses" and that "the money that was being paid to AIG employees" was "under a provision which the Congress itself had passed a month ago." But as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did not create the right for AIG -- or any company -- to pay bonuses. Rather, AIG reportedly disclosed that it had entered into agreements to pay those bonuses more than a year ago, the Bush Treasury Department approved the AIG bailout with this agreement in place, and the relevant provision in the recovery act actually restricted the ability of companies receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to award bonuses in the future. From the March 25 edition of Fox News' Hannity: HANNITY: I want to get into, and I think all of the media is ignoring this, and the fact that he got a pass last night during this press conference is very, very troubling to me, and very specifically, I think this moves America down the road to socialism, the biggest power grab. They have asked for, in just the last week, the Obama administration, the right to limit executive pay even for companies that are not getting a bailout. They saw it yesterday. We saw in the -- I believe it was The Washington Post -- they're actually seeking the right to seize firms. They want to use the reconciliation process to pass their health care bill, and cap and trade, which would eliminate the need for Republican votes in the historical sense, and even some Democrats are opposing. Can you explain to our audience how dangerous this power grab is? GINGRICH: Sure. Look, I think if you read Jonah Goldberg's book on Liberal Fascism and you read the chapter on what a liberal fascist's economics would be like, it's frighteningly prescient. I think he ought to, you know, re-issue it as sort of an introductory guide to how the left is thinking this year. We are seeing the biggest power grab by politicians in American history. The idea that they would propose that the Treasury could intervene and take over non-bank, non-financial system assets gives them the potential to basically create the equivalent of a dictatorship. You don't want to do what they want, they take over your company. You do what they want, Congress retroactively -- and this is what made last week's lynch mob like a third-world government, when the Congress literally got out of control, panicked, panicked because people were mad at it and it turned out that the Congress had passed the authorization in the stimulus bill for AIG to pay those bonuses. The Congress had approved it. The people at AIG were acting what they thought was the rules set by the government. Suddenly, they're being attacked. They are retroactively losing their money. Why would anybody want to invest in a country -- HANNITY: Now, wait a minute. GINGRICH: -- where [Rep.] Barney Frank [D-MA] and [Sen.] Chris Dodd [D-CT] can go back and retroactively take money away from you? HANNITY: So if we put all these things together -- that they control executive pay, that they can take over firms, retroactively tax people or target individuals as they did -- you used the term dictatorship. That moves America towards a dictatorship? GINGRICH: Sure. Look, it absolutely moves you towards a political dictatorship. The Constitution specifically prohibits the kind of bill that they passed in the House last week, to go back retroactively and confiscate 90 percent of the money that was being paid to AIG employees, under a provision which the Congress itself had passed a month ago. I mean, I think people need to look carefully at what despicable behavior this is.

In a February 26 Associated Press article on the omnibus legislation passed by the "Democratic-controlled House" on Tuesday, David Espo reported that "Republicans assailed the legislation as too costly" and quoted Republicans criticizing the bill as, in the reporter's words, "bristl[ing] with earmarks." While Espo included examples of Democratic earmarks, at no point did he give any indication that many of the earmarks were included in the bill at the request of Republicans. Moreover, Espo cited the Taxpayers for Common Sense as a critic of the earmarks in the bill, without noting that the group cited earmarks by both Democrats and Republicans. While quoting Republicans attacking the bill for earmarks, Espo did not note a handout distributed on February 24 by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) titled "You can't spell 'earmark' without an 'R,' " asserting that "40% of the earmarks in the omnibus appropriations bill are Republican earmarks." The handout also stated that "[t]he earmarks in the omnibus appropriations bill total less than 1% of the budget," and that they "were reduced by 43% last year, and the omnibus appropriations bill reduces earmarks by another 5%." Espo also wrote that "[a]fter persuading lawmakers to keep earmarks off the stimulus bill, Obama made no such attempt on the first non-emergency spending measure of his presidency. The result was that lawmakers claimed billions in federal funds for pet projects -- a total of 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense [TCS]." He added: "Majority Democrats declined to provide a number of earmarks, but said the cost was far smaller, $3.8 billion, 5 percent less than a year ago." However, Espo did not note that TCS highlighted both Republican and Democratic earmarks. Indeed, in its February 24 item on the earmarks in the omnibus bill, TCS reported that Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT) sponsored an earmark designating $300,000 for a "Montana World Trade Center," Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) sponsored an earmark designating $200,000 for an "Oil Region Alliance," and Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) sponsored an earmark designating $190,000 for the "Buffalo Bill Historical Center." By contrast, in their reporting on the omnibus bill, several other media outlets have noted the Democrats' response to Republican allegations about earmarks. In a February 24 Congressional Quarterly article on the appropriations bill, staff writer Bennett Roth reported: House Democrats are working to undercut accusations by Republicans that the omnibus spending bill represents a spending spree on earmarks -- and pointedly noting that the measure includes a healthy number of GOP-sponsored special projects. Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., distributed a handout Tuesday at his weekly news conference entitled, "You can't spell 'earmark' without an 'R,' " which stated that 40 percent of the earmark dollars included in the bill were sponsored by Republicans. The appropriations omnibus (HR 1105) is scheduled for a House vote Wednesday. "Republicans are continuing to try to sweep their history under the rug and convince the American people that they are committed to fiscal responsibility," stated the handout. "But their record on earmarks and the amount of earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations bill make it clear that Republicans are just using this as another political ploy." Also, in a February 24 McClatchy article headlined "GOP hates earmarks -- except the ones its members sponsor," David Lightman reported: "Republicans are expected to deliver a daylong rant Wednesday against Democratic spending legislation, yet the bill is loaded with thousands of pet projects that Republican lawmakers inserted." Lightman also reported: "House Democrats estimate that Republicans inserted 40 percent of the earmarks in the bill. An independent budget watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the 60-40 Democratic-Republican ratio followed historical patterns." Furthermore, Lightman also reported on the earmarks of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), the senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, and Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), the top Republican on Senate Appropriations: Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, would spend $3.8 million on a Needles, Calif., highway. Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the top Republican on Senate Appropriations, backs earmarks including a $950,000 nature education center in Moss Point, Miss. He defends earmarks. "You have to take these on a case-by-case basis," he said. "A lot of these projects are justified." One prominent Republican critic, however, wouldn't relent. When he was asked what Obama should do with a bill full of earmarks, Sen. John McCain of Arizona said flatly: "I would call on him to veto it." In addition, an AP audio report on Espo's article asserted: "Republicans blasted the measure for including almost 9,000 earmarks at a cost of more than 7 billion dollars," but did not report that some of the earmarks are sponsored by Republicans. From the February 26 AP article: The Democratic-controlled House pushed through a $410 billion measure Wednesday that boosted domestic programs, bristled with earmarks and chipped away at policies left behind by the Bush administration. [...] After persuading lawmakers to keep earmarks off the stimulus bill, Obama made no such attempt on the first non-emergency spending measure of his presidency. The result was that lawmakers claimed billions in federal funds for pet projects -- a total of 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Majority Democrats declined to provide a number of earmarks, but said the cost was far smaller, $3.8 billion, 5 percent less than a year ago. Among the earmarks was one sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., who secured $200,000 for a "tattoo removal violence outreach program" in Los Angeles. Aides said the money would pay for a tattoo removal machine that could help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past, and anyone benefiting would be required to perform community service. Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said the bill included at least a dozen earmarks for clients of PMA Group, a lobbying company now at the center of a federal corruption investigation. "It's simply not responsible to allow a soon-to-be-criminally indicted lobbying firm to win funding, all borrowed, in this bill," he said. No charges have been filed against the firm or its principals, although the company's offices were raided earlier this month, and it has announced plans to disband by the end of the month. Federal prosecutors are investigating PMA Group's founder and president, Paul Magliochetti, who is a former top aide to Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds defense programs. In remarks on the House floor, Republican leader John Boehner urged Obama to veto the legislation, citing earmarks. At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs responded only in general terms whether that was possible. "There is great concern in this building and by the president about earmarks," Gibbs said. "Without having looked specifically at a piece of legislation, I'm hesitant to throw out that four-letter word, 'Veto.' " From the AP web audio report: Republicans blasted the measure for including almost 9,000 earmarks at a cost of more than 7 billion dollars. Democrats wouldn't say how many there are, but insist the cost is about half that amount. One of the earmarks was for a $200,000 program to help gang members erase their tattoos.

During the January 11 edition of Fox News' Geraldo at Large, author and syndicated columnist Ann Coulter defended her new book's false claim that "the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth weren't forced to retract any part of their story" by again falsely claiming -- even after Media Matters for America exposed the falsehood in her defense of her original claim -- that the "example" of a retraction cited by Media Matters was simply a correction of retired Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr.'s rank. Coulter stated: "Changing a lieutenant back to his proper title from enlisted man is not a retraction." In fact, as Media Matters noted when Coulter first purported to respond to the item pointing out her falsehood, the Swift Boat Vets did not merely alter a description of Schachte's rank; they changed their account of what happened during a December 2, 1968, mission, for which the U.S. Navy awarded Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) his first Purple Heart, to claim that Schachte was aboard a skimmer with Kerry during the mission. The group's original account -- which matched Kerry's own account and that of the two other veterans who say they were on board the vessel -- made no mention of Schachte's presence on board the skimmer. Coulter initially made the false claim that the Swift Boat Vets merely fixed their description of Schachte's rank in a January 7 article on the conservative website Newsmax.com, in which she was purporting to respond to falsehoods identified by Media Matters. Media Matters pointed out that her claim was false; nonetheless, on Geraldo, Coulter repeated the claim without addressing Media Matters' rebuttal. In her latest book, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America, Coulter falsely claims that "the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth weren't forced to retract any part of their story." On Geraldo, Coulter stated of Media Matters' item documenting the book's falsehoods: "[T]heir first list of objections they put up as lies, heinous lies on my book -- claimed that I said the Swift Boat veterans had never retracted anything, and their example of that was where a website entry had to be changed because they had mentioned a lieutenant and described him as an enlisted man. Changing a lieutenant back to his proper title from enlisted man is not a retraction." Coulter's remarks on Geraldo echoed her claim in the January 7 Newsmax.com article that the "correction of the website entry was to fix a mistaken description of Schachte as an enlisted man, rather than the lieutenant that he was. That is not a 'retraction.' " However, as Media Matters noted, the Swift Boat Vets' "correction" did not merely "fix a mistaken description" of Schachte's rank. The revision claims that the skimmer was "under the command of Lt. William Schachte" and that he and Kerry "were accompanied by an enlisted man who operated the outboard motor." The original, however, referred to Kerry as "commanding a small, foam-filled 'skimmer' craft with two enlisted men" and made no mention of Schachte's presence on board the skimmer. The original description matches Kerry's own account, as well as the account of Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis, two enlisted men who insist that: (1) Schachte was not on the skimmer; (2) that Kerry was in command; and (3) that Runyon and Zaladonis were the only other people besides Kerry on the small craft. As Media Matters also noted, several other Swift Boat Vets made statements during the 2004 presidential campaign that were inconsistent with their previous accounts, or subsequently reportedly retracted comments they made during that campaign. From the January 11 edition of Fox News' Geraldo At Large: GERALDO: Here's Ann, who's agreed tonight to answer questions posed by her harshest critics at the very liberal website, Media Matters. Before I get to that, here's my review: much better than the compilation books, the quote books. I thought they were a little, kind of, on autopilot. This one is thoughtful, if outrageous. COULTER: I like that review. GERALDO: You can -- you can quote me. COULTER: Good. We'll put that on the paperback. GERALDO: Now, the reason I'm letting Media Matters, with your consent, ask you questions, which you have not yet seen, is that you -- COULTER: Wait. No. These are the ones that I've already responded to. GERALDO: When did you get these questions? COULTER: They -- it came out that -- like the day after my book came out, and I posted my response on my webpage. They were crazy. GERALDO: Oh, no, these are -- they gave me new ones. They gave me new questions. COULTER: No, no, no, no, no, no. GERALDO: Then I'm going to ask you them anyway. COULTER: No, but -- as Einstein said, "Never memorize something you can look up." GERALDO: OK. COULTER: They did this the first time. They were crazy. They were so crazy that you don't get -- GERALDO: Question number one. COULTER: No, you don't get a second bite at the apple. When your first 12 questions -- GERALDO: On the Today show, you claimed as evidence of your contention -- COULTER: No, no, no, no. GERALDO: -- that you were banned for life by NBC, that the Drudge Report has never had to retract anything -- he has, though, many times -- how can we trust your research given your faith in the Drudge Report? COULTER: [snoring] OK. I think the more important point is their first list of objections they put up as lies, heinous lies on my book -- claimed that I said the Swift Boat veterans had never retracted anything, and their example of that was where a website entry had to be changed because they had mentioned a lieutenant and described him as an enlisted man. Changing a lieutenant back to his proper title from enlisted man is not a retraction. GERALDO: But do you agree as we sit here tonight that Drudge has had to retract things over time -- and we all do. COULTER: He never promoted -- no. There's a difference between a mistake, as Media Matters did in the first round -- and I'm not going to take some new things being sprung at me now. No, no, no. I did not agree to that. I've answered the first 12 they came out with. Sometimes, you have to look something up to see what it is they're talking about. GERALDO: All right. All right. You recently said -- COULTER: Another -- wait -- wait a second because this is all [inaudible] Fox News. One of their alleged mistakes -- GERALDO: Who are you talking about now? COULTER: Media Matters. That's what we're talking about. GERALDO: But let me ask you the questions. COULTER: OK. Media Matters said -- GERALDO: You can handle these questions. COULTER: I can handle -- I can -- but I can give you details on the ones that they did when the book first came out. They can't be proved completely wrong -- GERALDO: She's taking my questions? COULTER: -- on the first 12 and then come back with another 12. GERALDO: Are you as -- COULTER: Wait a second. Let's do the retraction -- GERALDO: Let me ask you a question. COULTER: Hang on. They said the same thing about Fox News that they're saying about Drudge now? I'd talked about NBC's -- GERALDO: You're blaming liberals as victims and -- but they say that you are -- COULTER: I pointed out -- GERALDO: -- portraying yourself as a victim by saying you're banned for life from NBC but you've been on NBC 100-odd times. COULTER: OK, that's the kind of reporting you get from liberals. I didn't say I was banned from life [sic]. That was what the Drudge headline was on it. That's like an article on Sarah Palin and whatever The New York Times headline one -- was is: "Palin says." No, that's a headline from Drudge. I didn't say that. Anyway, they said the same thing about Fox News having to retract -- GERALDO: Are you or are you not banned for life from NBC? COULTER: Not since the Drudge Report ran. GERALDO: OK. All right. COULTER: That was rescinded after eight hours. GERALDO: Good. Third and final question, which I've memory [sic]. COULTER: I want us to get back to Fox News and the [inaudible] retraction. GERALDO: I'm going to get to Fox News. I have something to say about that. The -- COULTER: You know what I'm talking about? GERALDO: The last thing is that you said that -- wait, I'll get to it. Minnesota recount -- that [Al] Franken is stealing the election. COULTER: I've been writing about that repeatedly since the election. GERALDO: Do you think Franken -- but there's no evidence. Is there any evidence that he's stealing it? COULTER: Yeah. Of course, there is. Read my columns. AnnCoulter.com. GERALDO: But the -- COULTER: I've been predicting it since -- it's the exact same happened -- that happened in Washington state. GERALDO: You believe as you sit there tonight that Franken -- COULTER: And that is not in my book; that is on my website. But you know what else is on my website? The response to the first 12 lies, lies -- GERALDO: All right. COULTER: -- lies, that Media Matters claims are in this book. GERALDO: The Fox News -- COULTER: The Fox News claim -- GERALDO: But, wait. But let me ask you a question about that. COULTER: -- with the exact same sort of "retraction" -- GERALDO: Fox News -- it seems to me, you're portraying Fox News as -- COULTER: [inaudible] GERALDO: -- ultra-liberal with a couple of conservatives sprinkled in between. COULTER: No, as I say in the book, that it is shocking, but people have gotten so used to this Orwellian world of a left-wing media. It is shocking that none of the Democrats -- GERALDO: It is number 16 -- COULTER: Are you not -- GERALDO: -- on Amazon as we sit there tonight. It's another best-seller for Ann Coulter. Love her or not, she knows how to sell books. COULTER: Although I prefer to talk about my book. GERALDO: Next time.

On the April 30 edition of CNN s The Situation Room, reporting on how the standoff over Iraq war funding could possibly delay the purchase of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) armored vehicles, CNN senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre said: "And so, while the Democrats send the president a bill he can t sign, and the president holds out for one with no timelines, the Army and the Marines have to get by with the 1,000 vehicles they have now, not the 6,000 more they re still waiting for." McIntyre s construction -- that President Bush "can t sign" the war funding bill -- echoes the White House s position on the bill. Congress passed a bill that provides $124 billion in funding and requires that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq begin by October 2007. Bush could sign the bill and fund the war, including the supply of MRAP vehicles, but instead he has vowed to veto it. From the April 30 edition of CNN s The Situation Room: McINTYRE: But plans to kick the deployment of the better-armored vehicles to Iraq into high gear has hit a political roadblock: the standoff between Congress and the White House over Iraq funding. While each side blames the other, $3 billion for more life-saving vehicles is held hostage to the political debate. As the outgoing Army chief told Congress last month, the only hold-up is funding. GEN. PETE SCHOOMAKER (U.S. Army chief of staff): We can build what we could get the funds to build. It s strictly an issue of money. [end video clip] McINTYRE: And so, while the Democrats send the president a bill he can t sign, and the president holds out for one with no timelines, the Army and the Marines have to get by with the 1,000 vehicles they have now, not the 6,000 more they re still waiting for -- Wolf. BLITZER: So, you -- there s a clear frustration level that you re sensing out there? McINTYRE: Well, that s right. I mean, obviously it doesn t become a critical problem right away. But with Congress looking like they may not come up with a compromise until June, that s really putting the squeeze on the Army to try to reprogram some funds to keep the flow of these vehicles going. BLITZER: Jamie, thank you for that. We ll stay on top of this story for our viewers.